NEWS
Victims bill to Doyle’s desk
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Beth Mueller:
- Vendors on Frances may get boot (October 30, 2008)
- Falk speaks out on drinking statistics (September 25, 2008)
- Martin scoops sweets (September 4, 2008)
- McCain picks Palin for VP spot (September 2, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Legislators will vote on 'Compassionate Care' soon (December 6, 2007)
- Assembly amends victims legislation (September 20, 2007)
- 'Compassionate Care' bill hits Assembly road bump (December 12, 2007)
- Bill forcing Plan B notice garners ire (April 26, 2007)
- Compassionate Care bill passes final state hurdle (February 29, 2008)
Share This:
by Beth Mueller
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Lengthy and heated debate surrounding a bill that would require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to victims of rape finally came to a close Wednesday with the legislation’s 61-35 passage in the Republican-controlled state Assembly.
If enacted, the bill dubbed by some as the “Compassionate Care for Rape Victims Act” and others the “Chemical Abortion Hospital Mandate,” requires all Wisconsin hospitals give rape victims information about emergency contraception, or the morning-after pill, and dispense it upon request.
The bill next goes back to the Democratic-controlled state Senate to approve a technical change, where it is expected to pass easily, and then to Gov. Jim Doyle’s desk to be signed into law.
The issue surrounding emergency contraception drew heavy debate from both sides.
Neither Amanda Harrington nor John Rinke planned to become activists, but both were personally affected by the issue and spurred into speaking out.
Harrington, a recent graduate of the University of Wisconsin, was interning at Planned Parenthood when she heard about the bill. She was offered emergency contraception after surviving a sexual assault while she studied abroad in Italy, and that experience made her feel personally connected to the issue in Wisconsin.
“I was outraged that only a third of hospitals in Wisconsin were providing this treatment for women,” Harrington said.
She explained her role with Planned Parenthood has mostly involved raising awareness, and she hasn’t found people who truly oppose the idea.
“I don’t meet opposition when I explain it to fathers and mothers and their daughters, too,” Harrington said. “When I explained to my father, and his friends, they were outraged, because they heard what he went through.”
Rinke, an emergency room doctor at Community Memorial Hospital in Menomonee Falls, Wis., heard about the bill through a Catholic physicians’ group, and worries about the personal ramifications of requiring doctors like him to dispense a drug to which they are morally opposed.
“I know physicians, I know emergency physicians, I know hospital administrators,” Rinke said. “Emergency medicine has been my breath and my blood for more than 25 years; this bill will affect emergency physicians.”
He said though doctors who fail to produce information or dispense emergency contraception wouldn’t be fined directly, the fines assessed to hospitals would put their jobs in jeopardy.
“It puts the emergency physician who is pro-life in the untenable position of having to choose between his conscience and his career,” Rinke said.
The difference between the two is fundamentally who each sees as the patient.
“When people see this issue, they see the humanity, they see that the woman in front of you is the patient at the particular moment,” Harrington said.
But Rinke said the bill “places the physician in the position of swinging the axe of an executor.”
“There are two patients here, not just one,” he added.
As for when the bill becomes law, Rinke worries about the effect it will have on rural emergency rooms and other hospitals that had previously not been sexual assault care centers.
“What the state of Wisconsin is saying to me with this bill is: If you love a patient so much that you can’t stand hurting them, that you can’t stand killing them … then you don’t belong in Wisconsin, find someplace else to practice your profession,” Rinke said.
Harrington, however, was pleased to see the bill pass the Assembly. “I think it’s a huge victory, but I also think this is just one step to justice for rape victims,” she said.
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 9:24am):
Why is it that just 4 paragraphs of this story are concerned with those who support this legislation, and eleven (11!) paragraphs deal with those who oppose it???
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 2:07pm):
I understand your concern, Anon. While it is unfortunate that most of the article serves as a soapbox for Dr. Rinke's misunderstanding of the legislation, it is disappointing that the author did read the language of the bill to see that Dr. Rinke's interpretation of the legislation is unfounded.
It seems to me that Dr. Rinke (who I'm assuming is the same doctor who harassed me and other CCRV supporters moments after the photograph above was taken) had not read the bill for himself, and instead has been misled by a small--but apparently very powerful--radical special interest group that has been spreading misinformation about what exactly AB 377 says and does (read: "The Chemical Abortion Mandate" bill).
If you read the legislation for yourself (which is widely available http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/AB-377.pdf) the first thing you will notice is the glaring absence of the word "doctor" in the bill. That's because this bill makes room for the very few (and there are few!) doctors who, like Dr. Rinke, liken dispense of emergency contraception to execution. This bill says that a hospital must find a doctor--any doctor on that premises--to inform the victim about EC and to give it to her if she chooses to take it.
Furthermore, it is the hospital that faces civil liability if it does not comply with the legislation, not the doctor. And really, this legislation is important because AMA guidelines state that access to EC is a necessary component of immediate care for rape victims. Hospitals who do not comply with AMA standards or state legislation SHOULD be held accountable.
I have been to both committee hearings on the bill, in the Senate and the Assembly. At both hearings, not a single hospital or hospital organization offered opposition to the bill. In fact, several testified that they do not see any reason why this bill should bring a conflict of interest to its staff, as scheduling arrangements can be made to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Dr. Rinke and others who are confused about the legislation should also be happy to see that "emergency contraception" is clearly defined in the bill as something--like Plan B, or an emergency IUD--as something that is approved by the FDA for the purpose of preventing a pregnancy, not terminating it.
Also, it's important to note that just as the bill does not mandate that all doctors dispense this medication, it does not mandate that all women who just survived the trauma of rape take it. It mandates that they are given a CHOICE. And I can tell you from experience, this is one of the only "choices" rape victims can make in this situation because many doctors, like Dr. Rinke are admittedly unprepared for handling rape victims because they see so few of them. Dr. Rinke told me that in ten years of ER practice, he'd only treated one rape victim.
Having suffered additional trauma at the hands of the ER doctor in Venice who slapped my bottom and told me everything will be fine and who did not offer me a gown for my exam, I will be damned if another women is left more angry at the ER doctor who saw her than she is at the perpetrator of violence who assaulted her hours before.
Thankfully, AB 377 requires that hospitals consider the possibility of handling a rape victim when scheduling its ER doctors and developing hospital protocol. As a result, I would imagine that Dr. Rinke will never have to bother himself with another one again. But based on his words and his attitude, it's all the better, since he cannot treat the patient before him with comprehensive, appropriate, AMA minimum standards of care.
Also, I am really frustrated by the way opposition to the bill portrays the issue as an attack against Catholic physicians or Catholic hospitals. I have deep respect for the Catholic Church, having admired all my life my great aunt who has served the church for over 70 years as a Dominican Sister. She is an educator, and told me that it is important that all doctors--Catholic or not--provide accurate information to women about contraception after rape because she is forbidden by the Church to teach about contraception in her schools. Furthermore, Dr. Rinke's group of Catholic doctors may like to go visit St. Vincent's hospital in Green Bay, who told my father that they already offer EC to rape victims--pursuant the Catholic Directives--and train their nurses to collect evidence, should the victim choose to prosecute.
But according to Dr. Rinke, this is a "rape center," and instead of ensuring that all hospitals should be prepared to deal with rape victims, the AMA non-compliant hospital should just be able to refer victim to the closest "rape center," which may be hours away. Dr. Rinke, when it is acceptable for there to be "car accident centers" or "kidney stone centers," I will then buy your argument that allowing some hospitals to choose to not be held accountable or responsible for treating rape victims well is acceptable.
This bill sends a strong message to the women of Wisconsin: All state hospitals must comply to the very minimum standard of care set by the AMA so that if you face the horrendous crime of rape, your local ER will have a protocol in place to treat you.
Anonymous (January 24, 2008 @ 2:08pm):
P.S. That last post was written by me, Amanda Harrington.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
